A continuation of the exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the…

Answ. It is evident that this place of James is derived from, and hath respect unto the words of our Saviour; it being an express Inculcation of his Precept and Direction on the same reason. The same Answer therefore will serve both places, which will not be difficult from the observation of the Reasons and Circumstances of our Saviours discourse. And to this end we may observe,

(1) That all things prohibited by our Saviour in that Sermon to the Jews, were in themselves and by virtue of the Law of God antecedently unlawful. Only whereas the Pharisees by their Traditions and false Interpretations of the Scripture in a compliance with their own wickedness and covetousness, had persuaded the body of the Church, and brought them into the practice of much lewdness and many sins; and by their Ignorance of the true spiritual nature of the Law, had led men unto an Indulgence unto their internal Lusts and Corruptions, so they break not forth into open practice; our Saviour rends the veil of their Hypocrisy, discovers the corruption of their Traditions and Interpretations of the Law, declares the true Nature of sin, and in sundry Instances shows how and wherein by these false glosses, the body of the people had been drawn into Soul-ruining sins, whereby he restored the Law, as the Jews speak, unto its pristine Crown. Let any of the particulars mentioned by our Saviour be considered, and it will be found that it was before unlawful in it self, or declared so in the positive Law of God. Was it not evil, to be angry with a Brother without a cause, and to call him Racha and Fool, ver. 22. was it not so to look on a woman to Lust after her, or were such unclean desires ever innocent? That therefore which is here prohibited by our Saviour, Swear not at all, was somewhat that was even then unlawful, but practised on the false glosses of the Pharisees upon the Law. Now this was not solemn swearing in Judgement and Righteousness, which we have proved before not only to have been lawful, but appointed expressly by God himself.

(1) That all things prohibited by our Saviour in that Sermon to the Jews, were in themselves and by virtue of the Law of God antecedently unlawful. Only whereas the Pharisees by their Traditions and false Interpretations of the Scripture in a compliance with their own wickedness and covetousness, had perswaded the body of the Church, and brought them into the practice of much lewdness and many sins; and by their Ignorance of the true spiritual nature of the Law, had led men unto an Indulgence unto their internal Lusts and Corruptions, so they break not forth into open practice; our Saviour rends the veil of their Hypocrisie, discovers the corruption of their Traditions and Interpretations of the Law, declares the true Nature of sin, and in sundry Instances shews how and wherein by these false glosses, the body of the people had been drawn into Soul-ruining sins, whereby he restored the Law, as the Jews speak, unto its pristine Crown. Let any of the particulars mentioned by our Saviour be considered, and it will be found that it was before unlawful in it self, or declared so in the positive Law of God. Was it not evil, to be angry with a Brother without a cause, and to call him Racha and Fool, ver. 22. was it not so to look on a woman to Lust after her, or were such unclean desires ever innocent? That therefore which is here prohibited by our Saviour, Swear not at all, was somewhat that was even then unlawful, but practised on the false glosses of the Pharisees upon the Law. Now this was not solemn swearing in Judgement and Righteousness, which we have proved before not only to have been lawful, but appointed expresly by God himself.